Farewell Mark Dayton, The Un-Politician

As we count down Mark Dayton’s final days as Governor of Minnesota, it’s worth reflecting on one of the more peculiar figures in recent Minnesota political history.

If mad political scientists had set out to create the perfect politician, rest assured it would look nothing like Mark Dayton.

In a profession where optimism sells, Governor Eeyore came across as perpetually gloomy.

In a job where gregariousness and charm are needed to build winning coalitions, Dayton wasn’t very willing or able to glad-hand with legislators or other power brokers.

In a business where glibness is an invaluable asset, Dayton was often difficult to understand and unpersuasive in his speaking style. (Some of this may have been due to an underlying health issue, but the political challenge remains.)

In a grueling endeavor where energy and stamina are needed, Dayton’s chronic health issues have slowed him in his job and on the campaign trail.

And in a job where charisma often wins converts, Dayton possessed all the charisma of a lump of lutefisk.

Poor Governor Dayton. He lacks the hard-wired optimism of Hubert Humphrey, charm of Tim Pawlenty, glibness of Norm Coleman, energy of Paul Wellstone and charisma of all of the above.

But somehow, some way, Mark Dayton became a successful Governor.

He raised taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans and increased the minimum wage without crashing the economy, as his conservative critics had promised would happen.

He expanded Medicaid and faithfully implemented the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which led to Minnesota having the best rate of health insurance coverage in state history, and one of the best in the nation.

He paid back millions that Pawlenty had borrowed from schools, and increased investments in them.

He refused to use the budget gimmicks Pawlenty employed to avoid tough choices, which helped end Minnesota’s long run of budget shortfalls, and allow Minnesota to earn a coveted AAA bond rating, which will save taxpayers millions in future years.

While implementing these progressive policies, Minnesota’s economy has boomed, outperforming the national economy and the economy that conservative Governor Scott Walker built in neighboring Wisconsin.

It also should be noted that Dayton’s family inheritance made it possible for him to self-fund his rise to political power. Ordinary people with Dayton’s political disabilities could not have achieved what Dayton did in his career.  That’s a problem for our democracy.

But the fact remains, Dayton achieved all of this without a lot of political talent. He mostly accomplished those things due to his decency, candor, policymaking expertise, disciplined focus, and commitment to doing the right thing for vulnerable Minnesotans and our common good.

In the end, I’d take those things over all the optimism, glibness, gregariousness, energy, stamina and charisma in the world. Somehow, Dayton the un-politician made it work.

Twenty Debates? Oh No, Mr. Bills!

“Less is more,” minimalist designers tell us.  “The law of diminishing returns,” economists explain.

And so it goes with campaign debates.

Campaign debates serve a lot of important purposes for our democracy. They are a more efficient way to communicate with voters than door-knocking or pressing the flesh one clammy hand at a time.  They get candidates off-script, which captures rare moments of candor, humor, humanity, intelligence, stupidity and reality.  They cover more issues than ads, direct mail and other forms of political communications, which exposes candidates’ depth, or shallowness.

But clearly, there can be too much of a good thing.  In the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, Mark Dayton, Tom Horner, and Tom Emmer debated and debated, and debated some more.  They debated an eye-glazing 25 times.  Most of the debates ended up getting ignored by reporters, and just about everyone else, because they became complete and utter re-runs. I mean, even if you love Gilligan’s Island, and who amongst us does not,  the 25th time you see a re-run about Gilligan’s pedal powered bamboo car is significantly less riveting than the first 5 times.

As Washington University political scientist Steven Smith observed about the 2010 marathon debate-a-thon:

 “…there is a point of diminishing returns and I think in the Minnesota case we may have reached the point in the last month where there have been so many debates that the individual debates just don’t receive much attention.

Now in 2012, State Representative Kurt Bills wants to debate U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar 20 times over about 90 days.  This desire likely has less to do with Bills‘ love of debates than it does with the fact that his campaign is broke and having a difficult time delivering his oddball Wellstonian-libertarian fusion messaging.

Though Kloubachar is a bright and skilled debater, her campaign strategists would prefer to keep the popular incumbent in highly controlled settings until Election Day, to preserve her large lead.  Therefore, so far they have agreed to two debates.  For context, former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman agreed to debate challenger Al Franken five times.

Somewhere between Kloubachar’s 2 and Bills’ 20 is a reasonable number.  I’d say the number is no higher than 10.

Here is my rationale:  Most of what is learned by undecided voters through debates is conveyed through news coverage.  After all, the people actually attending the debates, or monitoring them start-to-finish on TV or radio, are predominantly voters who made up their minds long ago.  So, when the news coverage stops, the debates pretty much stop yielding benefits for undecided voters.

Minnesota’s newsrooms continue to shrink dramatically, and are decreasingly willing to cover politics, particularly broadcast news outlets.   Given those unfortunate trends, I find it difficult to believe that the Minnesota’s press corps will give decent coverage to more than about 10 debates.

So, I’m all for debates.  And two is not enough.  But oh no, Mr. Bills, not 20.

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Minnesota Now Has To Look To South Dakota For Interesting Political Ads

For a time, the nation looked to Minnesota for innovative political ads.  Working with local ad pros in 1990, an obscure college professor’s “Fast Paul” and “Looking for Rudy” TV ads were a national sensation.

Since then, Minnesota’s pols have gone conventional.  Most ads now follow The Recipe:

Ominously droning music.  Grainy photo of Evil Opponent caught in an unflattering facial expression. The Big Accusation(s).

Transition to heroic music!  Lovely images of Our Photoshopped Candidate helping school children read, seniors do paperwork, and veterans secure their lapel pins! Images of Our Photshopped Candidate working at his desk in the wee hours, and in front of a sea of flags inspiring the masses with a forceful finger jab in the air! Call-to-action!  Logo!  Disclaimer.

Sound familiar?  The ingredients to The Recipe never change appreciably.  Just add special interest money, and repeat ad nauseum.

The Recipe produces ads that are so similar in tone and feel that it is very easy for voters to tune them out.  Nothing about them sparks enough curiosity to prevent voters from closing their ears, changing the channel, or skipping the commercial via DVR.  For this reason, The Recipe remains more effective than most tactics, but much less effective than it once was.

Still, year after year, political consultants convince politicians and special interests to bake up enormous batches of The Recipe.  Consultants push it because it is relatively fast to produce, low-budget, and low-risk.  Just shoot stock video and drop it into the template.  Those are somewhat defensible reasons.  But consultants also push mass production of The Recipe because it earns them a high profit margin, in the same way that any assembly line has higher profit margins than customized craftsmanship.  The Recipe often serves the constulant’s needs more than the candidate’s needs.

In every election cycle, there are a few exceptions to the rule.  Wellstone in 1990 was one.  Jesse Ventura had a few.   A couple of years ago, Steve Novick in Oregon was another.  This month, there is a pretty decent non-conventional web video from South Dakota congressional candidate Jeff Barth:

Scoff at the production value if you like.  Look down your nose at the campy humor.  But this video, airing for free, has had over 150,000 YouTube viewings, due to peer-to-peer sharing, and referrals from free airings on news programs.  For a primary candidate in a state of 380,00 voters, that’s a big deal.  And unlike conventional ads, it is airing for free.

Why is something like this successful? After all, it’s not nearly as glossy, glib or compact as The Recipe.  Barth’s video is successful because it is many things that the 30-second cookie cutter ads are not.  It’s unique enough to draw you in.  It’s funny enough to cause you to want to share it.  It’s informative enough to make it worth your while.  It’s provocative enough to stick in your memory.

Even if you only watch this video once, you come away knowing something about the candidate’s background, personality and approach to life and politics.  This video leaves me thinking this guy Barth might not be another risk averse  congressional clone.  In a year when job approval ratings for Congress are at 10% that “not like the others” message is a strategically important leave behind.

Will anyone in Minnesota be imaginative and courageous enough to do anything unique with their political ads this election cycle, or can we look forward to heapin’ helpins of The Recipe?

Loveland